Update an existing task by modifying its title, status, priority, assignee, or description.
Update an existing task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | New task title | |
| status | No | New status | |
| taskId | Yes | Task ID | |
| priority | No | New priority | |
| assigneeId | No | New assignee user ID | |
| description | No | New task description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as idempotency, partial updates, or side effects. No annotations are provided to fill this gap, leaving the agent uninformed about whether the update replaces all fields or only provided ones.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no redundant information. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple parameter set and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks context about expected outcomes (e.g., confirmation of update, updated task representation) or any special behavior, making it only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Each parameter has a basic description like 'New task title', which adds slight clarity by indicating they are new values. However, it does not explain constraints (e.g., valid statuses, priority levels) or relationships between parameters, so it stays at baseline given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing task', which is specific enough. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_task and complete_task_work, though it could be more explicit about which fields are updatable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for modifying task attributes, nor does it differentiate from start_work_on_task or complete_task_work which might also involve updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.